Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

matthewball.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#821

Post by tivert »

kragen wrote: post #767
tivert wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> well, i was more thinking about a former sex worker, a group which includes many more of your friends and acquaintances than you're likely aware of. People say stuff like that, but I'm skeptical. It probably indicates more about "your friends and acquaintances" than mine. > still, it's a clue that what he wants out of the relationship is not an equal partner but a sort of brood mare or something. I don't think you…

i do think sex work is more common in argentina than in other places i've lived. misogynists don't seem to be i'm not just talking about a simple stereotype, though; i'm talking about a whole misogynistic ideology which is so widespread that you have to understand it in order to give any coherency to widely used phrases like 'sell your body' or 'purity ring' i don't have any experience with prostitutes or camgirls as…

> i'm not just talking about a simple stereotype, though; i'm talking about a whole misogynistic ideology which is so widespread that you have to understand it in order to give any coherency to widely used phrases like 'sell your body' or 'purity ring'

Honestly, it seems like you're conflating many different things (e.g. the "mileage" thing above, "purity rings," and the pejorative connotation of "sell your body") into a single artificial whole that doesn't actually exist as such. I'd grant the "mileage" thing is probably clearly a part of some "misogynistic ideology," but not the other two. The Wikipedia page on "purity rings" lists examples of male (now) celebrities who once wore them. The idea of "selling your body" being pejorative connects to the idea of commerce being corrupting (which is seen elsewhere, such at the concept of "selling out") and I don't think male prostitutes would be seen any more favorably than female ones.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#822

Post by kowbell »

listless wrote: post #816
kowbell wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have subscribed. I have paid for PPV. Why? I have disposable income and I feel good when I spend it supporting creators I like. I subscribe to several Patreons of artists and YouTube creators, I’ve got that yearly Nebula subscription locked in, I buy merch and CDs from local bands (even though I don’t really listen to them after shows), and I also will pay folks posting tantalizing stuff on the internet. Sure I can…

Thank you! I appreciate the write up. Do I understand correctly that you do not get a companionship aspect from it? I guess I think of OF as being where you go beyond porn to forming some sort of relationship with the porn star themselves.

Correct, no companionship for me — I understand this is a business and any connection is as deep as a “customer service” role at most. The relationship part is weird to me. I’m just paying because I want to see more of that person’s content specifically, and You Gotta Support The Troops™ (and by troops in this context I mean sex workers).

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#823

Post by inemesitaffia »

kragen wrote: post #754
tivert wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or 'cute guy turns out to have enough of a hangup about your past sex work to not date you' (which apparently doesn't necessarily imply he's not relationship material, though i'd think it ought to) Obviously such a person is not relationship material for a sex worker, but why would you think he ought not be relationship material for anyone else?

well, i was more thinking about a former sex worker, a group which includes many more of your friends and acquaintances than you're likely aware of. i'd think of it as much less of a red flag for anyone else! still, it's a clue that what he wants out of the relationship is not an equal partner but a sort of brood mare or something. here in argentina, the kind of guys who would have a problem with former sex work ofte…

It's always fascinating to see the working assumption that women are somehow indifferent to these issues. As though being a sex worker is fine as a man.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#824

Post by inemesitaffia »

acdha wrote: post #628
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad part is that most people seem to be happy when businesses fire people for things done on personal time - as long as the person doesn't agree with the thing in question. I remember when Mozilla fired Brendan Eich, a lot of my "liberal" friends were all for it. They didn't care the least bit that it set a dangerous precedent for businesses to fire people for being gay, or being a sex worker in the past, or what…

There’s a bit of a difference when it’s a corporate officer, and the action in question is not their personal freedom but attempting to restrict other people’s freedoms, including many of the people who would report to them. Someone having an OF doesn’t impact anyone else but there’s at least a valid argument that Eich went beyond his personal freedom of speech when it came to materially contributing to the removal o…

It's identical. The difference is where you stand on the reason.

Someone in this thread has pointed out that the it's only the actions considered unacceptable that have changed

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#825

Post by hungie »

alt227 wrote: post #481
hungie wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we connected, why not? I guess I'd make sure we both had clean sti panels before engaging in sex, but I'd do that with any partner. "They used their dick or vagina to make money" is not any different to me than "they used their brain or hands to make money".

Thats a fine opinion, and I fully agree with you. However its slightly different to the discussed point here, which is that people who use their dick or vagina to make money publicly can later have that used against them. Theres nothing wrong with dating a sex worker, but when you want to make them a wife and have children, there becomes a risk that some crazy drug addict is going to spot them in the future and do so…

It can only be used against you if people think it can be used against you.

Like, imagine a world where we said, " you flipped burgers in college? Eww gross, you've robbed your life!"

It sounds absurd because we've collectively decided one of those jobs is good and one is bad. We can collectively decide they are both fine, actually.

Also, if you're that model includes "random drug addict who is aware of my wife's porn career notices my wife, then chooses to act on it" I think your threat model may need revising. Yes, I'm sure that happens hundreds of times a year in the US. Driving a car to school seems statistically MUCH more dangerous.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#826

Post by hungie »

jacobgkau wrote: post #772
hungie wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine for you (though I'd challenge you to ask yourself why), but younger generations and many in older generations like myself are realizing that sex work is just work. Bodies are just bodies. Relationships and past sexual history are in the past. It's another flavor of bodily autonomy.

> sex work is just work. Bodies are just bodies. Relationships and past sexual history are in the past. Emotions are just emotions. Might as well just stop with the whole "dating" thing and only use each other transactionally when we want kids. Or better yet, just don't reproduce, right?

Your words, I didn't say those things.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#827

Post by hungie »

kidintech wrote: post #643
hungie wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This framing, "sell their dignity", is your moral judgement (coming from your cultural, religious, or some other) background. I don't see it as any less dignified than any other work. You sell your labor to someone who pays you less than the value it produces. Now, if you want to argue that median creators get payed only a tiny fraction of their time, and like Twitch/YouTube it's a losing game for most, then we're on…

> don't see it as any less dignified than any other work You do not, and that is your moral judgement. Rationalizing earning money by any means necessary is a very slippery slope, and the discussion is much more nuanced than popular media would lead you to believe.

My gut feeling is that people joining the army is a whole lot more destructive than people doing sex work. Especially on only fans or whatever.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#828

Post by hungie »

random9749832 wrote: post #443
hungie wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn is fine. Sex has been a part of our social fabric for longer than we've been human. Obviously, there exists a lot of exploitation in porn, but performers who enjoy doing it and can support themselves with it on a platform like of? More power to them.

I can go on any known porn site right now in Incognito and the front page is full of cuck, incest and trans. We aren't just talking about intercourse we are talking about certain acts of depravity being pushed into the collective conscious.

Trans people having sex is not an act of depravity, lol.

Trans people are people, and deserve sex just as much as anyone else.

Cuck porn is extremely not my thing, but strikes me as a pretty tame fetish if all parties consent. Playing with power dynamics can be a lot of fun and very strengthening for a relationship. (Good BDSM practitioners are often very consent focused and amazing listeners.)

The incest stuff is gross though. I'll shake hands with you on that.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#829

Post by AlexeyBelov »

lupusreal wrote: post #654
prmoustache wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment above was mentionning "prospective partner", so it implies happening during the early stages of a relationship. Or I don't know, maybe in your culture you have to wait months / years before considering a partner someone you are dating regularly / spending a significant part of your life with.

Knowing somebody before being in a relationship with them is anything but unusual. Even if you start dating somebody you never knew before you still get to know each other before making any sort of commitment. Keep coping though.

Coping with what?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#830

Post by trnetntont »

defrost wrote: post #819
prmoustache wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is not that these books include transphobia or not, the point is she chose to include transgender characters after all the drama on twitter relating to her likes and accounts she folllowed/supported. She definitely used all that drama to sell books and benefited from it.

> the point is she chose to include transgender characters Which character in Troubled Blood is transgender? Is there a transgender character in The Ink Black Heart ? It's not Dennis Creed as I recall from my reading some time past, certainly not Edie Ledwell. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41536875

[flagged]
Post reply on HN